Time to negative PCR conversion amongst high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the clinical and virological outcomes in Omicron BA.1- and BA.2-infected patients who received sotrovimab with those in patients who received nirmatrelvir for the prevention of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this multi-centric, prospective ANRS 0003S CoCoPrev cohort study, patients at a high risk of progression of mild-to-moderate BA.1 or BA.2 COVID-19 who received sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir were included. The proportion of patients with progression to severe COVID-19, time between the start of treatment to negative PCR conversion, SARS-CoV-2 viral decay, and characterization of resistance variants were determined. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the time to negative PCR conversion and a mixed-effect model for the dynamics of viral decay. RESULTS: Amongst 255 included patients, 199 (80%) received ≥3 vaccine doses, 195 (76%) received sotrovimab, and 60 (24%) received nirmatrelvir. On day 28, new COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 4 of 193 (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%) sotrovimab-treated patients and 0 of 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p 0.24). One out of the 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients died (2%; 95% CI, 0-10%). The median time to negative PCR conversion was 11.5 days (95% CI, 10.5-13) in the sotrovimab-treated patients vs. 4 days (95% CI, 4-9) in the nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p < 0.001). Viral decay was faster in the patients who received nirmatrelvir (p < 0.001). In the multi-variable analysis, nirmatrelvir and nasopharyngeal PCR cycle threshold values were independently associated with faster conversion to negative PCR (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.56; p < 0.0001 and hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; p 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of nirmatrelvir in high-risk patients compared with that of sotrovimab was associated with faster viral clearance. This may participate to decrease transmission and prevent viral resistance.

The Polarity and Specificity of Antiviral T Lymphocyte Responses Determine Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients with Cancer and Healthy Individuals.

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on the in-depth understanding of protective immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). We characterized the polarity and specificity of memory T cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 viral lysates and peptides to determine correlates with spontaneous, virus-elicited, or vaccine-induced protection against COVID-19 in disease-free and cancer-bearing individuals. A disbalance between type 1 and 2 cytokine release was associated with high susceptibility to COVID-19. Individuals susceptible to infection exhibited a specific deficit in the T helper 1/T cytotoxic 1 (Th1/Tc1) peptide repertoire affecting the receptor binding domain of the spike protein (S1-RBD), a hotspot of viral mutations. Current vaccines triggered Th1/Tc1 responses in only a fraction of all subject categories, more effectively against the original sequence of S1-RBD than that from viral variants. We speculate that the next generation of vaccines should elicit Th1/Tc1 T-cell responses against the S1-RBD domain of emerging viral variants. SIGNIFICANCE: This study prospectively analyzed virus-specific T-cell correlates of protection against COVID-19 in healthy and cancer-bearing individuals. A disbalance between Th1/Th2 recall responses conferred susceptibility to COVID-19 in both populations, coinciding with selective defects in Th1 recognition of the receptor binding domain of spike. See related commentary by McGary and Vardhana, p. 892. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 873.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) for COVID-19 among 1112 severely immunocompromised patients.

OBJECTIVE: Immunocompromised patients have an increased risk of a severe form of COVID-19. The clinical efficacy of the tixagevimab/cilgavimab monoclonal antibody combination as pre-exposure prophylaxis against BA.1 and BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages is unknown. We aimed to describe the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis during the Omicron wave in France. METHODS: This was an observational multicentre cohort study of immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis between December 28, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Patients received tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150/150 mg intramuscularly if they had impaired vaccine response and a high risk of severe form of COVID-19. RESULTS: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab was administered to 1112 immunocompromised patients. After a median (range) follow-up of 63 (49-73) days, COVID-19 was confirmed in 49/1112 (4.4%) ≥5 days after treatment. During the study period, mean weekly incidence rate was 1669 in 100 000 inhabitants in Ile-de-France and 530 in 100 000 among patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis. Among infected patients, 43/49 (88%) had a mild-to-moderate form and 6/49 (12%) had a moderate-to-severe form of COVID-19. Patients with moderate-to-severe illnesses were less likely to have received early therapies than patients with mild forms (53.5% vs. 16.7% respectively) and 2/49 (4%) patients died from COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Our study reported a low rate of infections and severe illnesses among immunocompromised patients treated with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. A global preventive strategy including vaccines, preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies, and early therapies might be effective to prevent severe forms of COVID-19 among severely immunocompromised patients.

Cyclosporin A: A Repurposable Drug in the Treatment of COVID-19?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now at the forefront of major health challenge faced globally, creating an urgent need for safe and efficient therapeutic strategies. Given the high attrition rates, high costs, and quite slow development of drug discovery, repurposing of known FDA-approved molecules is increasingly becoming an attractive issue in order to quickly find molecules capable of preventing and/or curing COVID-19 patients. Cyclosporin A (CsA), a common anti-rejection drug widely used in transplantation, has recently been shown to exhibit substantial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity and anti-COVID-19 effect. Here, we review the molecular mechanisms of action of CsA in order to highlight why this molecule seems to be an interesting candidate for the therapeutic management of COVID-19 patients. We conclude that CsA could have at least three major targets in COVID-19 patients: (i) an anti-inflammatory effect reducing the production of proinflammatory cytokines, (ii) an antiviral effect preventing the formation of the viral RNA synthesis complex, and (iii) an effect on tissue damage and thrombosis by acting against the deleterious action of angiotensin II. Several preliminary CsA clinical trials performed on COVID-19 patients report lower incidence of death and suggest that this strategy should be investigated further in order to assess in which context the benefit/risk ratio of repurposing CsA as first-line therapy in COVID-19 is the most favorable.

Sexual Dimorphism and Gender in Infectious Diseases.

Epidemiological studies and clinical observations show evidence of sexual dimorphism in infectious diseases. Women are at less risk than men when it comes to developing most infectious diseases. However, understanding these observations requires a gender approach that takes into account an analysis of both biological and social factors. The host's response to infection differs in males and females because sex differences have an impact on hormonal and chromosomal control of immunity. Estradiol appears to confer protective immunity, while progesterone and testosterone suppress anti-infectious responses. In addition, genetic factors, including those associated with sex chromosomes, also affect susceptibility to infections. Finally, differences in occupational activities, lifestyle, and comorbidities play major roles in exposure to pathogens and management of diseases. Hence, considering sexual dimorphism as a critical variable for infectious diseases should be one of the steps taken toward developing personalized therapeutic approaches.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus shedding and lymphopenia are hallmarks of COVID-19 in cancer patients with poor prognosis.

Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the mechanisms underlying virus-host interactions during cancer therapies remain elusive. When comparing nasopharyngeal swabs from cancer and noncancer patients for RT-qPCR cycle thresholds measuring acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 1063 patients (58% with cancer), we found that malignant disease favors the magnitude and duration of viral RNA shedding concomitant with prolonged serum elevations of type 1 IFN that anticorrelated with anti-RBD IgG antibodies. Cancer patients with a prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection exhibited the typical immunopathology of severe COVID-19 at the early phase of infection including circulation of immature neutrophils, depletion of nonconventional monocytes, and a general lymphopenia that, however, was accompanied by a rise in plasmablasts, activated follicular T-helper cells, and non-naive Granzyme B+FasL+, EomeshighTCF-1high, PD-1+CD8+ Tc1 cells. Virus-induced lymphopenia worsened cancer-associated lymphocyte loss, and low lymphocyte counts correlated with chronic SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding, COVID-19 severity, and a higher risk of cancer-related death in the first and second surge of the pandemic. Lymphocyte loss correlated with significant changes in metabolites from the polyamine and biliary salt pathways as well as increased blood DNA from Enterobacteriaceae and Micrococcaceae gut family members in long-term viral carriers. We surmise that cancer therapies may exacerbate the paradoxical association between lymphopenia and COVID-19-related immunopathology, and that the prevention of COVID-19-induced lymphocyte loss may reduce cancer-associated death.

Expression of ACE2, Soluble ACE2, Angiotensin I, Angiotensin II and Angiotensin-(1-7) Is Modulated in COVID-19 Patients.

The etiological agent of COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2, is primarily a pulmonary-tropic coronavirus. Infection of alveolar pneumocytes by SARS-CoV-2 requires virus binding to the angiotensin I converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) monocarboxypeptidase. ACE2, present on the surface of many cell types, is known to be a regulator of blood pressure homeostasis through its ability to catalyze the proteolysis of Angiotensin II (Ang II) into Angiotensin-(1-7) [Ang-(1-7)]. We therefore hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 could trigger variations of ACE2 expression and Ang II plasma concentration in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We report here, that circulating blood cells from COVID-19 patients express less ACE2 mRNA than cells from healthy volunteers. At the level of circulating cells, this ACE2 gene dysregulation mainly affects the monocytes, which also show a lower expression of membrane ACE2 protein. Moreover, soluble ACE2 (sACE2) plasma concentrations are lower in prolonged viral shedders than in healthy controls, while the concentration of sACE2 returns to normal levels in short viral shedders. In the plasma of prolonged viral shedders, we also found higher concentrations of Ang II and angiotensin I (Ang I). On the other hand, the plasma levels of Ang-(1-7) remains almost stable in prolonged viral shedders but seems insufficient to prevent the adverse effects of Ang II accumulation. Altogether, these data evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 may affect the expression of blood pressure regulators with possible harmful consequences on COVID-19 outcome.

SARS-CoV-2 Persistent Viral Shedding in the Context of Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin Treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal shedding contributes to the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. Among 3271 COVID-19 patients treated at the Hospital University Institute Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France from 3 March to 27 April 2020, tested at least twice by qRT-PCR, the median SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal shedding duration was 6 days (range 2-54 days). Compared with short shedders (qRT-PCR positivity < 10 days), 34 (1.04%) persistent shedders (qRT-PCR positivity ≥ 17 days; mean ± SD: 23.3 ± 3.8 days) were significantly older, with associated comorbidities, exhibiting lymphopenia, eosinopenia, increased D-dimer and increased troponin (p < 0.05), and were hospitalized in intensive care unit in 17.7% vs. 1.1% of cases (p < 0.0001). Viral culture was positive in six persistent shedders after day 10, including in one patient after day 17, and no viral co-pathogen was detected in 33 tested patients. Persistent shedders received azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine ≥ 3 days in 26/34 (76.5%) patients, a figure significantly lower than in short shedders (86.6%) (p = 0.042). Accordingly, mortality was 14.7% vs. 0.5% (p < 0.0001). Persistent shedding was significantly associated with persistent dyspnea and anosmia/ageusia (p < 0.05). In the context of COVID-19 treatment, including treatment with azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine, the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal shedding was a rare event, most frequently encountered in elderly patients with comorbidities and lacking azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine treatment.

Natural history of COVID-19 and therapeutic options.

Introduction: COVID-19 presents benign forms in young patients who frequently present with anosmia. Infants are rarely infected, while severe forms occur in patients over 65 years of age with comorbidities, including hypertension and diabetes. Lymphopenia, eosinopenia, thrombopenia, increased lactate dehydrogenase, troponin, C-reactive protein, D-dimers and low zinc levels are associated with severity.Areas covered: The authors review the literature and provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the natural history of and therapeutic options for COVID-19. Expert opinion: Diagnosis should rely on PCR and not on clinical presumption. Because of discrepancies between clinical symptoms, oxygen saturation or radiological signs on CT scans, pulse oximetry, and radiological investigation should be systematic. The disease evolves in successive phases: an acute virological phase, and, in some patients, a cytokine storm phase; an uncontrolled coagulopathy; and an acute respiratory distress syndrome. Therapeutic options include antivirals, oxygen therapy, immunomodulators, anticoagulants and prolonged mechanical treatment. Early diagnosis, care, and implementation of an antiviral treatment; the use of immunomodulators at a later stage; and the quality of intensive care are critical regarding mortality rates. The higher mortality observed in Western countries remains unexplained. Pulmonary fibrosis may occur in some patients. Its future is unpredictable.

The immuno-oncological challenge of COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, pose considerable challenges for the management of oncology patients. COVID-19 presents as a particularly severe respiratory and systemic infection in aging and immunosuppressed individuals, including patients with cancer. Moreover, severe COVID-19 is linked to an inflammatory burst and lymphopenia, which may aggravate cancer prognosis. Here we discuss why those with cancer are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, describe immune responses that confer protective or adverse reactions to this disease and indicate which antineoplastic therapies may either increase COVID-19 vulnerability or have a dual therapeutic effect on cancer and COVID-19.

Immune responses during COVID-19 infection.

Over the past 16 years, three coronaviruses (CoVs), severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV (SARS-CoV) in 2002, Middle East respiratory syndrome CoV (MERS-CoV) in 2012 and 2015, and SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, have been causing severe and fatal human epidemics. The unpredictability of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) poses a major burden on health care and economic systems across the world. This is caused by the paucity of in-depth knowledge of the risk factors for severe COVID-19, insufficient diagnostic tools for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, as well as the absence of specific and effective drug treatments. While protective humoral and cellular immune responses are usually mounted against these betacoronaviruses, immune responses to SARS-CoV2 sometimes derail towards inflammatory tissue damage, leading to rapid admissions to intensive care units. The lack of knowledge on mechanisms that tilt the balance between these two opposite outcomes poses major threats to many ongoing clinical trials dealing with immunostimulatory or immunoregulatory therapeutics. This review will discuss innate and cognate immune responses underlying protective or deleterious immune reactions against these pathogenic coronaviruses.